Eating every 3 hours

NiceSmile17

Is this beneficial or ridiculous?

Sinistrous

Ridiculous. Stick to a caloric deficit and you will be fine.

Hornsby

It's beneficial if it helps you stay within your calorie goals.

WickedPineapple

Hornsby wrote: »

It's beneficial if it helps you stay within your calorie goals.

^^

diannethegeek

Unnecessary. If it helps you to stay within your goals or keeps your energy/mood/concentration levels up throughout the day, then great! Do it! But if it makes things harder for you throughout the day then consider not doing it. It's really a personal preference thing.

Linzer140fit

I don't think it's vital. I don't know if there's true science behind this but I read in one eating program that part of the benefit of doing this, waiting at least 2-3 hours between eating was for digestion and for your body to supposedly use more fully/effectively what you consume as opposed to snacking constantly and your body storing excess intake in bad ways cause it doesn't "need" it right then. Simplifying here...but anway that may be a bunch of bologna...but attempting to eat this way would cut down on in between meal snacking and agree with the previous posters, staying in defecit for the day would probably what is most important, I wouldn't get hung up on it.

faith104sb331

I am a cancer survivor l get tired and can't get to the gym everyday, but don't give up even if you have steps walk around your home 5times any little bit help. You can do it.

MinnieInMaine

diannethegeek wrote: »

Unnecessary. If it helps you to stay within your goals or keeps your energy/mood/concentration levels up throughout the day, then great! Do it! But if it makes things harder for you throughout the day then consider not doing it. It's really a personal preference thing.

This. As long as you're eating within your calorie goal, that's all that matters. Whether you eat those calories in 6-8 small meals or 1 large meal, it makes no difference. You have to just do whatever works best for you.

missylectro

Why would it be ridiculous... Absolutely everyone professional I've talked to supports this. My personal trainer... my body builder friend... my doctor...

The longer you wait between meals, the hungrier you get, and then you’re more likely to overeat. This is the main reason I do it.

If you eat smaller meals your blood sugar level will be more balanced. Blood sugar affects your energy... So if you eat one huge meal you get a big high, which is not only hard on your digestive system but also your blood sugar drops down after about 3-4 hours. You want constant energy.

Another reason is to teach you healthy snacking and prevent snacking on junk food or candy.

jannetcancino

It helps as long as you keep it with in your calories limits for the day, you are supposed to eat 6 small meals a day breakfast, lunch and dinner and 2 snacks in between meals to keep your energy levels and metabolism going throughout the day. I went to see a new nutritionist and started 2 weeks ago, I'm on a 1200 calories a day. I wont lie it is hard but I lost 5 pounds already. I know it's too soon to declare victory but I'm just sharing my personal experience with you.

jannetcancino

Ohhh most important!!!!! DO NOT SKIP ANY MEAL.

borndieu

I definitely think it is beneficial. On a normal day, I normally have around 5-6 meals. I've lost a lot of weight doing that.

emilyrigh

Beneficial. I do it (for the most part). It keeps you from starving and it keeps your metabolism in gear!

rileysowner

It is not necessary. If calories for the day are the same between two people and one eats every three hours and the other eat every 5-6 hours, the weight loss will be the same. Meal frequency and timing in terms of its direct effect on weight loss has been studied many many many times, the result being that calorie deficit is what makes the difference, not meal frequency/timing.

Having said that, if eating every three hours helps you stick to your daily calorie goal, go for it. Some people find it helpful. Others are hungry all the time eating every three hours preferring fewer larger meals. It is all about whether it helps you with long term compliance to your calorie deficit. In itself frequent meals do not affect overall daily metabolism, burn calories better, or anything like that which would make it the difference in losing weight.

rileysowner

borndieu wrote: »

I definitely think it is beneficial. On a normal day, I normally have around 5-6 meals. I've lost a lot of weight doing that.

You have lost a lot of weight by maintaining a calorie deficit.

emdeesea

I do it, but only because it keeps me on track. If I go too long between meals or snacks, I get really hungry, and then I risk eating way too much. So it's just easier for me to have something every 3 hours or so.

borndieu

rileysowner wrote: »

borndieu wrote: »

I definitely think it is beneficial. On a normal day, I normally have around 5-6 meals. I've lost a lot of weight doing that.

You have lost a lot of weight by maintaining a calorie deficit.

Yeah, that's true as well. Left that out.. In any event, eating more than 3 times a day at calorie deficit, keeps me full. It works for some people.

wisegirl_k

missylectro wrote: »

Why would it be ridiculous... Absolutely everyone professional I've talked to supports this. My personal trainer... my body builder friend... my doctor...

The longer you wait between meals, the hungrier you get, and then you’re more likely to overeat. This is the main reason I do it.

If you eat smaller meals your blood sugar level will be more balanced. Blood sugar affects your energy... So if you eat one huge meal you get a big high, which is not only hard on your digestive system but also your blood sugar drops down after about 3-4 hours. You want constant energy.

This! Plus... "When you eat large meals with many hours in between, your metabolism slows down between meals. Having a small meal or snack every 3 to 4 hours keeps your metabolism cranking, so you burn more calories over the course of a day." - WebMD

There are studies proving this and studies debunking this. So just use your own discretion.

In my experience, I'd die if I had to wait forever to eat my next meal. I get angry and tired and it's like torture if I have to wait too long to eat. That being said, if I still feel full 3-4 hours after my last meal, I may skip or shrink my next meal so not to feel bloated and force fed. It all depends on you. I focus on hitting my macros and staying within a certain caloric goal, and I usually succeed best when planning 5-6 meals throughout my day.

jaykal001

I agree with the overall trend - it may not be necessary for success, but I know from my personal struggles, it does help to curb snacking (especially bad snacking) as you are continuously fueling your body. The biggest caveat for me was that you really need to examine what comprises your typical meal, and be able to pare that down if you are going to eat an extra meal or two.

I've struggled a long time with the concept, and at least initially my change to 4 meals has been a good spark. It's only been about 2 weeks where I have seriously focused on and prepared 4 meals a day, and it's starting to feel 'normal' for me.

rileysowner

jaykal001 wrote: »

I agree with the overall trend - it may not be necessary for success, but I know from my personal struggles, it does help to curb snacking (especially bad snacking) as you are continuously fueling your body. The biggest caveat for me was that you really need to examine what comprises your typical meal, and be able to pare that down if you are going to eat an extra meal or two.

I've struggled a long time with the concept, and at least initially my change to 4 meals has been a good spark. It's only been about 2 weeks where I have seriously focused on and prepared 4 meals a day, and it's starting to feel 'normal' for me.

And from my experience eating 5-6 meals a day made me hungry and never feeling satisfied. 2-3 larger meals work far better for me to maintain my calorie deficit. If eating frequently works for you to maintain your calorie deficit, good for you. Just don't make the mistake that so many have that it somehow in and of itself helps weight loss or results in greater weight loss than not eating 5-6 meals a day.

rileysowner

krhyme wrote: »

missylectro wrote: »

Why would it be ridiculous... Absolutely everyone professional I've talked to supports this. My personal trainer... my body builder friend... my doctor...

The longer you wait between meals, the hungrier you get, and then you’re more likely to overeat. This is the main reason I do it.

If you eat smaller meals your blood sugar level will be more balanced. Blood sugar affects your energy... So if you eat one huge meal you get a big high, which is not only hard on your digestive system but also your blood sugar drops down after about 3-4 hours. You want constant energy.

This! Plus... "When you eat large meals with many hours in between, your metabolism slows down between meals. Having a small meal or snack every 3 to 4 hours keeps your metabolism cranking, so you burn more calories over the course of a day." - WebMD

There are studies proving this and studies debunking this. So just use your own discretion.

In my experience, I'd die if I had to wait forever to eat my next meal. I get angry and tired and it's like torture if I have to wait too long to eat. That being said, if I still feel full 3-4 hours after my last meal, I may skip or shrink my next meal so not to feel bloated and force fed. It all depends on you. I focus on hitting my macros and staying within a certain caloric goal, and I usually succeed best when planning 5-6 meals throughout my day.

All of these claims are incorrect and have been consistently shown to be incorrect. Metabolism does not slow down significantly between meals unless you eat nothing for about 72 hours (yes, you read that correctly up to 72 hours). In fact the opposite seems to happen. From all my reading, there are no reputable studies that support that eating frequently will result in any difference in weight loss compared to eating less frequently if calories are kept the same.

There are several studied done on meal timing that I have hand, and more have been done since. They point to the same thing, when you eat does not matter. They did everything from one meal a day to several meals a day. In 2007 Stote et al in the A Journal of Clinical Nutrition did a study of people half the group eating one meal a day (dinner in early evening). The other half did three meals a day. After the test time they let the whole group eat as they normally would for 11 weeks to normalize their eating pattern, then the switch the groups around. The study time was 8 weeks, and they were eating enough to maintain their body weight. The results, 3 meals a day no change in weight. 1 meal a day lost 3 pounds and an average of 4.6 pounds of fat (probably because it is difficult to eat all your calories in one meal). That is not old science, it is recent. When you eat makes no difference. See also Smeets et al British Journal of Nutrition 2008 finding no metabolic rate change between 2 or 3 meals a day; and Farshchi et al Am Jrnl of Clinical Nutrition 2005 using 3, 6 or 9 meals a day again finding no change in metabolic rate.

The multiple meals a day may help some people feel more satisfied helping them stick to their diet, but will do nothing to significantly increase your calorie burning.

As Parks et al say in their article in the Am Jrnl of Clinical Nutrition, "Simply put, the question of whether there is a health benefit from the consumption of multiple small meals will ultimately depend on how much energy is consumed, as opposed to how often or how regularly one eats."

The conclusion is if multiple meals a day helps you to keep from eating too many calories, by all means do so. If it just makes you have to struggle to live life so you are more likely to cheat on the number of calories you eat, eat 3 meals a day. Use whatever works best for you to be able to maintain your calorie deficit and lose weight consistently.